Following a catastrophic blaze that ripped through a public housing estate in Hong Kong’s Tai Po district on November 26, the city grapples with the immense scale of sorrow, while a parallel debate erupted over the appropriateness of leveraging tragedy for commercial messaging. The devastating fire at the Wang Fuk Court complex, which consumed seven of its eight residential towers, is currently cited as the deadliest in Hong Kong since 1948, claiming at least 94 lives, including one firefighter, with search operations ongoing for hundreds of missing residents. As the community mourns and local celebrities extend condolences, one individual’s attempt to link the disaster to financial planning ignited a public relations firestorm.

The controversy centers on William Lam, an actor who also works in the insurance and wealth management sectors. In the direct aftermath of the tragedy, Lam posted a message on his private WeChat account addressing the “fragility of life” and the critical necessity of risk management. He framed insurance not as a transactional product sale, but as a mechanism for demonstrating “love and responsibility” for one’s future, urging followers to appreciate daily life and secure financial support.

This attempt to pivot the discourse toward the financial implications of unexpected loss immediately drew sharp public criticism. Netizens widely condemned Lam, accusing him of exploiting the tragedy for personal gain and displaying a distinct lack of empathy. Critics labeled his actions as “profiting off the dead,” amplifying the sensitivity surrounding commercial messaging during periods of mass community grief.

The ensuing backlash also prompted a swift reaction from local media. TVB, a major Hong Kong broadcaster, issued a statement distancing itself from Lam. Despite his reported participation in the upcoming 2025 drama Battle of Marriage, TVB clarified that Lam is not one of their contracted artists, asserting that his personal activities and expressions do not reflect the company’s official position.

In response to the mounting pressure, Lam released a public apology, arguing that his original message was strictly intended for his “private social circle” and was not meant as a public advertisement. He maintained that his primary intention stemmed from genuine concern and a desire to encourage friends to increase their risk awareness, stressing that he had not engaged in any commercial sales activities following the incident.

Lam acknowledged the profound sensitivity required when addressing such a large-scale catastrophe. “I fully understand how important it is to show respect and empathy in the face of disaster,” he stated, apologizing if his method of expression caused “misunderstanding or discomfort.” He extended his deep respect for the sacrifices made by firefighters and offered his sincere condolences to the victims and their families, pledging to exercise greater caution in his public and private communications moving forward.

The incident underscores a crucial ethical boundary: while the financial necessity of mitigating life’s risks remains a valid conversation, the timing and context of that discussion—especially when directly related to a recent, high-fatality disaster—must be handled with extreme care and sensitivity. Expert analysts frequently caution that attempts by businesses or individuals to capitalize, or appear to capitalize, on human suffering inevitably backfire, eroding public trust and overshadowing any underlying message of genuine concern. As the Tai Po community focuses on recovery and rebuilding, this episode serves as a powerful reminder of the imperative to prioritize empathy and respect over commercial interests in times of collective loss.